Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 19–27

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Parenting stress among child welfare involved families: Differences by

child placement
Jessica Rodriguez-JenKins a,⁎, Maureen O. Marcenko b
a
University of Washington, School of Social Work, 4101 15th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98105-6299, United States
b
University of Washington, School of Social Work, Partners for Our Children, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The intersection of parenting stress and maltreatment underscores the importance of understanding the factors
Received 5 June 2014 associated with parenting stress among child welfare involved families. This study takes advantage of a statewide
Received in revised form 30 July 2014 survey of child welfare involved families to examine parent and child characteristics and concrete resources, in
Accepted 30 July 2014
relation to parenting stress. Separate multivariate analyses were conducted by placement status given the differ-
Available online 7 August 2014
ence in day-to-day parenting responsibilities for families receiving in-home supervision compared to those
Keywords:
whose children are in out-of-home care. Across both groups, parenting stress was predicted by child mental
Parenting stress health, a finding with critical implications for intervention to this vulnerable group of families. Parent mental
Child welfare health also predicted parenting stress for the in-home group and food insecurity predicted parenting stress in
Child mental health the out-of-home group. Findings confirm that stress varies by context and that a multi-dimensional framework,
Poverty considering both psychosocial and concrete resources, is required to capture contributors to parenting stress.
Parent mental health © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Parenting has many rewards, but even under optimal conditions,
it can be stressful. The numerous demands of caregiving can lead to
emotional and physical fatigue, resulting in parent–child relationship
strain (Deater-Deckard, 2004). Parenting stress has long been an area
of interest to researchers concerned with child well-being (Abidin,
1992; Deater-Deckard, 2004). When parenting stress is high, the likeli-
hood of punitive parenting (Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, Pettit, & Zelli,
2000; Webster-Stratton, 1990) and child maltreatment increases
(Black, Heyman, & Smith Slep, 2001; Haskett, Smith Scott, Grant,
Ward, & Robinson, 2003; Rodriguez, 2010), with implications for child
well-being (Deater-Deckard, 2004). The intersection of parenting stress
and maltreatment underscores the importance of understanding the
factors associated with parenting stress among child welfare involved
families, both to inform secondary prevention efforts and as an opportu-
nity for targeted intervention with these vulnerable families.
Conceptually, parenting stress arises from the interaction of parent,
child, and contextual factors (Deater-Deckard, 2004), arguing for re-
search that is multi-dimensional and accounts for the unique circum-
stances surrounding child welfare involvement. The purpose of the
study presented here is to examine parent and child characteristics
and contextual factors such as parent resources, in relation to par-
enting stress in a statewide child welfare population. Recognizing
that parenting stress can be affected by whether or not the parent has
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: janrj@uw.edu (J. Rodriguez-JenKins).
full-time responsibility for the care of the child, we examine stress
separately for families with children in-home but under agency supervi-
sion and those whose children were in out-of-home placement. While
there is a substantial body of literature examining parenting stress,
there is a gap in our understanding of this phenomenon among families
actively involved in the child welfare system. This study adds to the
child welfare literature by bringing a multi-dimensional framework to
the study of parenting stress and by examining possible differences by
child placement status. Identifying predictors by placement status fur-
ther reveals several points of intervention that may be unique to child
welfare involved families given that parenting contexts can vary.
2. Parenting stress and child maltreatment
Researchers have linked high levels of parenting stress with an in-
creased risk of child maltreatment (Curenton, McWey, & Bolen, 2009;
El-Kamary et al., 2004; Éthier, Lacharité, & Couture, 1995). Due to the in-
nate stress involved in parenting, all parents are subject to varying de-
grees of related stress (Abidin, 1992; Deater-Deckard, 2004). Although
not all those with high levels of parenting stress maltreat their children,
parenting stress has been linked to aspects of problematic parenting
such as harsh parenting (Webster-Stratton, 1990), severe physical disci-
plinary practices (Pinderhughes et al., 2000), low parental warmth
(Belsky, 1984; Rodgers, 1993), and negative and controlling behavior
(Bigras, LaFreniere, & Dumas, 1996). Increased parenting stress can
contribute to child behavior problems or can further exacerbate existing
behavior problems (Margalit & Kleitman, 2006), which presents addi-
tional risk for maltreatment.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.07.024
0190-7409/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
20 J. Rodriguez-JenKins, M.O. Marcenko / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 19–27
3. Theoretical perspective
Parenting stress, the dependent variable of interest, theoretically is a
consequence of the cumulative impact of day-to-day child rearing
stressors (Crnic & Greenberg, 1990; Deater-Deckard, 2004), in the
context of social, material, and individual resources (Belsky, 1984;
Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Garbarino, 1977). Daily stressors result from de-
voting significant time, physical and emotional energy, and consider-
able effort enacting the varied tasks necessary in the parenting role.
While daily tasks considered alone may not elicit high levels of stress,
researchers theorize that cumulative exposure can lead to substantial
parenting stress (Crnic & Greenberg, 1990). This manifests itself as
caregiver stress and as relationship strain between a parent and a
child (see Deater-Deckard, 2004 for a full overview). Taken together,
the cumulative tasks and resource demands of parenting exert pressure
in the form of losses on parents — for example, loss of time, energy, and
control over one's self and life (Berry & Jones, 1995).
Broader contextual factors, defined as social, material, and individual
resources, are conceptualized as contributing to or buffering parenting
stress. Research shows that social resources such as the presence
of a partner can reduce parenting stress, while increases in the num-
ber of children in the family can produce additional stress (Cain &
Combs-Orme, 2005). We draw on family economic stress frameworks
(Barnett, 2008) to understand the role of material resources in parenting
stress. Theoretically, economic disadvantage can lead to parental
distress, which in turn can negatively influence parenting practices
(Barnett, 2008; Gershoff, Aber, Raver, & Lennon, 2007). Research sup-
ports this theoretical pathway across racially diverse families (Barnett,
2008), which is important in child welfare given the disproportionate
representation of families of color in this system (Hill, 2006). In our
own research with child welfare involved families we have found that
economic hardship is frequently experienced as housing insecurity
and food instability (Marcenko, Lyons, & Courtney, 2011). We conceptu-
alize individual resources as the presence or absence of parent chronic
risk factors that can interfere with parenting and create parenting stress.
These factors include parent mental health (Gray, Edwards, O'Callaghan,
Cuskelly, & Gibbons, 2013), substance use (Kelley, 1992), and intimate
partner violence (IPV; Kalil, Tolman, Rosen, & Gruber, 2003). Child men-
tal health is also seen as an individual resource in our model. A parent
perceived child mental health problem is a strong predictor of parenting
stress (McPherson, Lewis, Lynn, Haskett, & Behrend, 2009).
Due to the conceptualization of parenting stress as the cumulative
impact of day-to-day parenting and given that child welfare involved
families comprise the population of concern, our analysis must account
for the special circumstances this poses for families. When children are
removed from their parent's care, day-to-day parenting responsibility
is reduced and parent/child interactions are altered. Even with this
change, they remain parents and continue to experience the emotional
aspects of parenting including deep concern for their children's
wellbeing (Gerring, Kemp, & Marcenko, 2008). When children remain
in the home, but under the supervision of the child welfare agency,
daily parenting responsibility continues with the added pressure of
agency scrutiny. Given these unique contexts, this study examines
parenting stress separately — for families whose children are placed
outside of the home and for those whose children remain in the
home. We build on the parenting stress literature, ecological models,
and family economic stress theory to examine potential predictors of
parenting stress including social, material, and individual resources.
4. Literature review
4.1. Social resources/family structure
Single parenting and family size are the family structure factors
most often associated with parenting stress (Cain & Combs-Orme,
2005; Cooper, McLanahan, Meadows, & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Taylor,
Washington, Artinian, & Lichtenberg, 2007). The majority of families
who come to the attention of the child welfare system are parenting
alone (Marcenko et al., 2011), putting them at high-risk for parenting
stress. As a consequence of limited social resources, these solo parents
must manage primary parenting responsibilities without the support
of additional adult help in the household (Cooper et al., 2009). Family
size, or number of children in the household, can attenuate family and
parent resources and thereby increase parenting stress. In an examina-
tion of the relationship among parent stress, health, childcare character-
istics, and social support, Taylor et al. (2007) found that as number of
children in the home increased so did levels of parenting stress.
Issues of poverty may further complicate family structure character-
istics and their impact on parenting stress (Black et al., 2001; Pears &
Capaldi, 2001). To understand the relative impact of income and social
support on parenting stress, Cain and Combs-Orme (2005) conducted
a study of 103 African American families. Examining four family config-
urations (mother and baby; mother, baby, and grandmother; mother,
baby, and unmarried partner; and mother, baby, and married partner),
they found that as total family income decreased, parental distress in-
creased with no impact from family configuration on parenting stress.
Similarly, a study comparing White and non-White families with
medically fragile children found that for White families increased social
support, and child developmental indicators were correlated with de-
creased parenting stress, but for families of color, parenting stress was
negatively correlated only with income (McDowell, Saylor, Taylor,
Boyce, & Stokes, 1995). These results support the hypothesis that for
families of color income is a stronger correlate of parent stress than
additional adult support or child disability.
4.2. Material resources/economic hardship
Poverty is a complex, and often intergenerational, phenomenon that
may exert significant influence on parenting stress. Evidence has sug-
gested that poverty, as measured by income, correlates with parenting
stress (Cain & Combs-Orme, 2005; McDowell et al., 1995). However, in-
come alone may insufficiently capture the impact lack of resources has
on parenting. For instance, Gershoff et al. (2007) found that material
hardship (food insecurity, housing instability, inadequate medical care,
and duration of financial trouble) increased parenting stress, which de-
creased positive parenting behavior. They suggest that a material hard-
ship framework better facilitates an understanding of the influence of
economic disadvantage on parenting stress. This conceptualization is
aligned with family stress models which generally identify economic
disadvantage as causing parent distress which has direct implications
for parenting strategies and parenting stress (for complete overview
see Barnett, 2008). The interconnected relationship between family
structure and poverty is evident, particularly for families involved in
the child welfare system as parents struggle to parent in an environment
of diminished financial and social resources (Marcenko et al., 2011).
4.3. Individual resources/chronic parent risk factors
Several chronic psychosocial factors, including parent mental health,
IPV, and substance abuse, put parents at-risk for child maltreatment as
well as elevated levels of parenting stress. The association between de-
pression and parenting stress has been broadly confirmed in the litera-
ture, particularly in the postnatal period (Gray et al., 2013; Leigh &
Milgrom, 2008) and among parents caring for children with disabilities
(Anastopoulos, Guevremont, Shelton, & DuPaul, 1992). Findings from
one of the few studies that compared mothers with and without a
history of maltreating their children indicated that the maltreating
mothers' had significantly higher levels of both psychological distress
and parenting stress compared with mothers without a history of mal-
treatment (McPherson et al., 2009). Mother's psychological distress pre-
dicted parenting stress only for the maltreatment group (McPherson
et al., 2009).
 J. Rodriguez-JenKins, M.O. Marcenko / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 19–27 21

Research into the role of IPV in parenting stress has produced mixed
results. Some studies report increased symptoms of parenting stress in
abusive relationships when compared to non-abusive relationships
(Kalil et al., 2003; Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 1998), while other
studies indicate no effect of physical or emotional partner abuse on par-
enting stress (Sullivan, Nguyen, Allen, Bybee, & Juras, 2000). Providing
evidence for the complicated relationship among chronic risk factors,
Renner (2009) found that depressive symptoms partially mediated
the link between IPV and later parenting stress.
Maternal substance use is widely acknowledged as a risk factor for
child maltreatment (e.g. Smith, Johnson, Pears, Fisher, & DeGarmo,
2007); however, few studies have explored parental substance use and
parenting stress. In a notable exception, Kelley (1992) explored the rela-
tionship between prenatal substance use, parenting stress, and maltreat-
ment for mothers with and without drug exposed infants. The results
indicate that mothers who used drugs during pregnancy had the highest
levels of parenting stress and were more likely to have their children
placed in out-of-home care. In a study of substance abusing mothers,
Nair, Schuler, Black, Kettinger, and Harrington (2003) found elevated
levels of parenting stress among those with five or more risk factors
such as depression, IPV, homelessness, and single parenting. This finding
points to the cumulative impact of multiple psychosocial risk factors.
4.4. Individual resources/child mental health
Numerous studies have confirmed that child mental health disor-
ders, particularly externalizing conditions, increase parenting stress
(Rosman, McCarthy, & Woolverton, 2001; Solem, Christophersen, &
Martinussen, 2011). There is some debate about whether actual child
behavior or parent perception of child behavior is more important
when assessing parenting stress. Some research shows that actual
child behavior (measured by teacher report) was associated with higher
levels of parenting stress rather than parent perception of behavior
(Creasey & Reese, 1996). Other studies have found parenting stress to
be unrelated to observed parent–child interactions, and related instead
to parent perception (Bigras et al., 1996; McPherson et al., 2009). The re-
lationship between actual and perceived child behavior on stress is
complex and likely affected by several factors including type (internal-
izing vs. externalizing), duration, and severity of symptoms.
5.1.1. Parent characteristics
Sample descriptive characteristics are reported in Table 1. Of the
final sample of 771 primary caregivers, 58% of the families received in-
home supervision and 42% had children placed in out-of-home care.
Across both groups, approximately 92% of caregivers were female.
Parents of the in-home group were significantly older statistically
(M = 33.2 years vs. 31.9 years) and had higher levels of education.
Families were predominantly low income, with 55% of out-of-home
families and 36% of in-home families making less than $10,000 a year.
Across both groups, the majority of families were White (62%), with
the second largest group being Mixed Race (in-home = 16%; out-of-
home = 18%). Out-of-home caregivers were more likely to be parenting
alone when compared to the in-home group (72% vs. 63%).
5.1.2. Child characteristics
There were a total of 2137 children 18 years old and under with 59%
being in out-of-home care. Mean number of children in the home was
not significantly different between the two groups, with families having
on average three children. The mean age of children in each family was
significantly different between groups (in-home M = 8.2 years; out-of-
home M = 7.3 years). Young children (ages 0–3) were more likely to be
placed in out of home care (65% vs. 35%, χ2 = 16.67, p b .001), a finding
consistent with prior research (Wulczyn, Ernst, & Fisher, 2011). In early
analyses, child age did not significantly contribute to the model. Having
young children in the home was highly correlated with younger parent
age, r = .60, p b .000. For these reasons, child age was not included in
the final analysis. Parent's identification of child mental health problems
was high, being identified in nearly two thirds of all families across
groups.
5.2. Measures
The survey included assessments of demographic information, child
information, household characteristics, parent mental health and sub-
stance abuse, IPV, and financial hardship.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics, by child placement status.

5. Methods Family characteristics In-home Out-of-home

(n = 345) (n = 464)

5.1. Data Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

or % or %
This study uses data from the Washington Statewide Survey of Child Parent age⁎⁎ 33.15 (9.77) 31.89 (9.59)
Welfare Involved Parents (hereafter referred to as the Parent Survey). Race
The Parent Survey conducted face-to-face interviews with primary White 62 62
African American 6 5
caregivers, 18 years and older, with a child welfare case opened for in- American Indian/Alaskan Native 6 7
home or out-of-home services in the past 30 to 120 days of the inter- Asian American, Pacific Islander 3 1
view date (n = 809). Interviews were conducted between July and Hispanic, Latino 6 5
December 2008 providing data regarding the characteristics, needs, Mixed race, more than one race 16 18
Education⁎
and engagement of child welfare involved families in Washington
Less than high school 24 34
State. The Parent Survey excludes caregivers unable to communicate High school/GED 29 27
in English, and caregivers incarcerated or living outside of Washington Greater than high school 47 40
State at the time of recruitment. The child welfare agency's administra- Lone parent⁎⁎ 63 72
tive database was used to select the sample. If two caregivers were iden- Gross household income less than $10,000/year⁎ 36 55
Unemployed⁎ 63 71
tified within a family, the primary caregiver was selected. If a primary
Housing instability within past year
caregiver was not indicated, the oldest female caregiver was selected. Homeless, evicted, or not enough money 52 59
The overall response rate was 82% (for more details on study design for rent⁎⁎
and recruitment procedure, see Marcenko et al., 2011). Food insecurity within past year
Not enough money for food 32 30
Listwise deletion was used to address missing data in the multivariate
Total number of children 2.81 (1.61) 3.06 (1.69)
analyses, resulting in the deletion of 38 cases (4.7% of the total sample). Mean age of children⁎⁎ 8.19 (6.40) 7.25 (5.78)
Significance tests were conducted to compare any possible differences Families with at least one child with a mental 67 66
between the dropped and retained cases on parenting stress, demo- health concern
graphic characteristics, care status, and risk factors. There were no signif- ⁎ p b .05.
icant differences between the groups. The final sample is 771 cases. ⁎⁎ p b .001.
22 J. Rodriguez-JenKins, M.O. Marcenko / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 19–27
5.2.1. Demographic and household characteristics
Demographic information was collected on primary caregivers,
including gender, race, age, highest level of educational attainment,
employment, income, current living situation, and total number of chil-
dren in their family. Caregivers were allowed multiple responses to the
question on race/ethnicity. In order to create a single race variable, we
coded respondents based on expected experiences in the child welfare
system. Thus, caregivers were coded as White if that was their only re-
sponse. If they reported more than one race, they were coded Native
American regardless of other responses, followed by African American
and Latino. The remaining caregivers were coded as other or mixed
race. After initial analysis using a five category race variable (White,
African American, Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN), and
Asian/Pacific Islander (API)), race remained non-significant in relation
to the dependent variable, parenting stress, so the decision was made
to collapse the categories into three: White, families of color (African
American, AIAN, API, and Latino), and mixed race.
The caregiver's highest level of educational attainment was based on
self-reported response to one of six categories, which were collapsed
into three categories: less than high school graduate or GED, high school
graduate or GED, and greater than high school (some college, technical
training, or college degree). Partner status included three possible re-
sponses: single, never married; married or in a committed relationship;
and separated, divorced, or widowed. An indicator variable was con-
structed to identify whether parents were parenting alone or with the
support of a partner.
We were able to establish, through the administrative database,
whether the respondent had at least one child removed from the
home at the time of the interview. We distinguished between those
who had at least one child removed (out-of-home) and those who did
not have any children removed from the home but received child wel-
fare services (in-home). Analyses were conducted separately based on
placement status. We found that parenting stress scores were signifi-
cantly different between these groups (p b .001), with parents whose
children were in out-of-home placement having less stress than parents
whose children remained in the home.
5.2.2. Chronic risk factors
Caregivers were asked about factors that have been identified as
increasing the risk of child maltreatment: mental health disorders, sub-
stance use, and IPV.
The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) was used
to measure mental health and substance abuse disorders. The MINI is a
widely used psychiatric structured diagnostic instrument that has been
validated against the much longer Structured Clinical Interview for DSM
diagnoses (SCID-P), the Composite International Diagnostic Interview
for ICD-10 (CIDI), and against expert opinion in a large sample in four
European countries (Sheehan et al., 1997). All research staff were
trained to administer the instrument by an approved trainer. The instru-
ment yields a lifetime and past 12-month diagnosis of depression,
alcohol and other drug use. Indicator variables were constructed from
both the 12-month and lifetime diagnoses to indicate the presence of
any depressive disorder and any substance use.
Caregivers were also asked six items from the Conflict Tactic Scale 1
(Straus, 1979) to measure IPV. Caregivers were asked about the preva-
lence and nature of violence in their relationship with their current or
most recent partner. Three items pertain to the respondent as victim
and three items pertain to the respondent as the perpetrator of aggres-
sive behavior (verbal threats, physical aggression, physical injury). Item
examples include “Has your partner grabbed, shaken, slapped or kicked
you?” and “Has your partner threatened to do something violent to
you?” The CTS1 has well-documented reliability and validity (Straus,
1979). The instrument is designed to be self-administered and Audio
CASI was employed given the sensitive nature of the questions. An indi-
cator variable was constructed based on these six questions to measure
whether IPV was present in the household.
5.2.3. Economic hardship
Economic hardship was measured using two dichotomous con-
structs, housing instability and food insecurity. Housing instability was
constructed by first creating an index based off of three yes/no re-
sponses to three questions; whether they had within the past year
1) been homeless, 2) been evicted, or 3) not had enough money to
pay for rent. Then a dichotomous variable was created based on this
index — where if respondents answered no to all three questions it
was coded as 0 and an answer of yes to one or more of the three ques-
tions was coded as 1. Food insecurity was based on respondents answer
to the question about whether they felt like they had enough money for
food over the last 12 months. Responses of yes were coded as 0 and no
were coded as 1.
5.2.4. Child mental health
For each of their children, parents were asked whether they had a
mental health condition, such as ADHD and depression. If respondents
answered yes for any of their children, they were coded as 1 and if
they answered no, they were coded as 0.
5.2.5. Parenting stress
Parenting stress was measured using the Parental Stress Scale
(PSS), an 18 item self-report scale (Berry & Jones, 1995). The items
on this scale represent both positive (emotional benefits, personal de-
velopment) and negative feelings (demands on resources, opportunity
costs and restrictions) and perceptions of parenthood in terms of how
caregivers typically feel about their relationship with their children.
Item examples for the PSS are “I am happy in my role as a parent”
and “I feel overwhelmed by the responsibility of being a parent.”
Each item was scored on a five point Likert scale ranging from “strongly
agree” (1) to “strongly disagree” (5), with several items being reverse
coded. Higher scores indicate greater stress. This scale is seen as an
alternative to the Parenting Stress Index (PSI), which is widely used
to measure parenting stress. The PSS is shorter than the PSI, more
easily understandable, appropriate for parents with children with and
without clinical concerns, and focuses on stress generated specifically
by the parenting role — rather than as a result of stress from other
situations such as financial and marital problems (Lessenberry &
Rehfeldt, 2004). The PSS has been found to correlate well with the
PSI (r = .75, P b 0.01; Berry & Jones, 1995). The PSS has been demon-
strated to have levels of internal consistency (.83), and test–retest reli-
ability over six weeks (.81). For this present study, the Cronbach's
alpha coefficient was .85.
5.3. Analytic strategy
Bivariate analyses were conducted to describe the overall sample
(Table 1). T-tests were used with continuous variables and chi-square
tests with categorical variables to establish statistical differences be-
tween the in-home and out-of-home group on the dependent variable
parenting stress. Separate multivariate analyses for in-home and out-
of-home groups were conducted to identify predictors of parenting
stress when controlling for demographic variables for two reasons:
1. The two groups were significantly different in a number of areas —
parent education, income, partner status, parent mental health and sub-
stance use, and on mean levels of parenting stress and 2. Conceptually
parents may experience stress related to the parenting role differently
when they continue to have day-to-day parenting responsibilities com-
pared to those whose children have been removed from their care. Pos-
sible predictors were drawn from significant findings in the parenting
stress literature of relatively stable characteristics that reasonably pre-
cede child welfare involvement. Predictors were organized by parent
demographics (age, education, race), family structure (partner status,
number of children), economic hardship factors (housing instability,
food insecurity), parent chronic risk factors (substance use, mental
health, IPV), and parent report of child mental health.
 J. Rodriguez-JenKins, M.O. Marcenko / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 19–27 23

We report a base model with only parent demographic variables
(base model), then add family structure variables (model 1), followed
by economic hardship variables (model 2), then parent chronic risk
factors (model 3), and lastly child mental health (full model). Conse-
quently, we were able to observe the behavior of parent demographics
as we added layers of potential risk factors to the model. All statistical
analysis was completed using SPSS version 19.
6. Results
6.1. Parent chronic risk factors
Parents reported high levels of mental health and substance use
disorders. The most common type of mental health disorder was
depression: 46.1% of respondents met criteria for lifetime depression.
There were no significant differences between the in-home and out-
of-home group based on parent mental health. The overall rates
of drug and alcohol abuse or dependency were lower than rates of men-
tal health in the sample. However, substance use rates for the out-of-
home group were almost double of the in-home group (44% vs. 24%,
χ2 = 22.61, p b .001).
About one-third (34%) of the total sample reported some form of
IPV. The out-of-home group had statistically significant higher rates of
IPV (38% vs. 31%, χ2 = 4.62, p b .05). The mean scores of parenting
stress were higher for the in-home group (M = 2.05; SD = .53) com-
pared to the out-of-home group (M = 1.91, SD = .53; p b .001).
6.2. Economic hardship factors
Economic hardship was measured by families' experience of housing
instability and food insecurity. Families whose children were out-of-
home were more likely to experience housing instability (59% vs. 52%,
p b .001), including eviction (20% vs. 12%, χ2 = 8.29, p b .005) and
homelessness (37% vs. 18%, χ2 = 34.12, p b .001). A little over half
of both groups stated they did not have enough money to pay rent in
the 12 months prior to the interview. About a third of both groups re-
ported that they did not have enough money to buy food over the last
12 months.
6.3. Multivariate analysis
A multivariate analysis explored possible predictors of parenting
stress for families with children in home supervision (see Table 2) and
out-of-home care (see Table 3). Predictors were organized by parent
demographics (age, education, race), family structure (partner status,
number of children), economic hardship factors (housing instability,
food insecurity), parent chronic risk factors (substance use, mental
health, IPV), and child mental health. There was an improvement in R2
from the base models in both groups, with a final R2 of 14% for the
out-of-home group and 19% for the in-home group. There is an overall
reduction of the BIC and AIC from the null model to the final model in-
dicating an improvement of fit over the null models.
6.3.1. In-home group
For the in-home group (Table 3), holding all other variables
constant, parent age (B = .08, p b .01), child mental health (B = .23,
p ≤ .001), and parent mental health (B = .20, p b .01) were significant
predictors of increased parenting stress. Food insecurity was significant
in models 2 and 3 but was no longer significant after controlling for
chronic risk factors and child mental health. While not significant in
the final model, race and total number of children were significant in in-
termediary model 1. Families of color had significantly less parenting
stress than White families (B = −.15, p b .05) and parenting stress in-
creased with number of children in the family (B = .05, p b .05). After
controlling for economic hardship, chronic risk factors and child mental
health, these two relationships were no longer significant.
6.3.2. Out-of-home group
For the out-of-home group (Table 3), holding all other variables
constant, parent age (B = .13, p ≤ .001), child mental health (B = .17,

Table 2
Regression analysis, predicting parenting stress in-home (n = 327).

Base model Intermediary model 1 Intermediary model 2 Intermediary model 3 Full model

B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)

Parenting stress (ref)

Parent demographics
Parent age 0.13 (0.03)⁎⁎⁎ 0.11 (0.03)⁎⁎⁎ 0.11 (0.03)⁎⁎⁎ 0.11 (0.03)⁎⁎⁎ 0.08 (0.03)⁎⁎
Education
Some college or more (ref)
HS/GED −0.06 (0.07) −0.05 (0.07) −0.03 (0.07) −0.02 (0.07) −0.02 (0.07)
Less than HS −0.01 (0.08) −0.02 (0.08) 0.01 (0.08) 0.02 (0.07) 0.02 (0.08)
Race
White (ref)
Families of color −0.13 (0.07)+ −0.15 (0.07)⁎ −0.62 (0.07)⁎ −0.14 (0.07)⁎ −0.10 (0.07)
Mixed race 0.01 (0.08) 0.01 (0.08) 0.01 (0.08) −0.02 (0.08) −0.03 (0.08)
Family structure
Lone parent −0.06 (0.06) −0.04 (0.06) −0.03 (0.06) −0.05 (0.06)
Total number of children 0.05 (0.02)⁎⁎ 0.04 (0.02)⁎ 0.04 (0.02)⁎ 0.02 (0.02)
Economic hardship factors
Housing instability −0.10 (0.08) −0.12 (0.08) −0.11 (0.08)
Food insecurity 0.19 (0.06)⁎⁎ 0.15 (0.06)⁎ 0.10 (0.07)
Parent chronic risk factors
Substance use −0.02 (0.08) −0.03 (0.07)
Mental health disorder 0.22 (0.06)⁎⁎⁎ 0.20 (0.06)⁎⁎⁎
Intimate partner violence 0.02 (0.07) 0.03 (0.06)
Child mental health
Child mental health 0.23 (0.06)⁎⁎⁎
Constant 1.68 (0.11)⁎⁎⁎ 1.64 (0.12)⁎⁎⁎ 1.62 (0.12)⁎⁎⁎ 1.50 (0.13)⁎⁎⁎ 1.55 (0.12)
R2 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.14 0.19
+
p b .10.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p ≤ .001.
24 J. Rodriguez-JenKins, M.O. Marcenko / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 19–27

Table 3
Regression analysis, predicting parenting stress out-of-home (n = 445).

Base model Intermediary model 1 Intermediary model 2 Intermediary model 3 Full model

B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)

Parenting stress (ref)

Parent demographics
Parent age 0.15 (0.03)⁎⁎⁎ 0.14 (0.03)⁎⁎⁎ 0.15 (0.03)⁎⁎⁎ 0.15 (0.03)⁎⁎⁎ 0.13 (0.03)⁎⁎⁎
Education
Some college or more (ref)
HS/GED −0.04 (0.06) −0.04 (0.06) −0.02 (0.06) −0.00 (0.06) −0.02 (0.06)
Less than HS 0.00 (0.06) 0.00 (0.06) 0.02 (0.06) 0.04 (0.06) 0.04 (0.06)
Race
White (ref)
Families of color 0.05 (0.06) 0.05 (0.06) 0.04 (0.06) 0.05 (0.06) 0.07 (0.06)
Mixed race 0.03 (0.07) 0.03 (0.07) 0.03 (0.06) 0.03 (0.07) 0.03 (0.06)
Family structure
Lone parent 0.01 (0.06) 0.02 (0.05) 0.03 (0.05) 0.03 (0.05)
Total number of children 0.01 (0.02) 0.01 (0.02) 0.01 (0.02) −0.00 (0.02)
Economic hardship factors
Housing instability −0.03 (0.05) −0.04 (0.06) −0.03 (0.05)
Food insecurity 0.24 (0.05)⁎⁎⁎ 0.23 (0.06)⁎⁎⁎ 0.22 (0.06)⁎⁎⁎
Parent chronic risk factors
Substance use −0.02 (0.06) −0.01 (0.05)
Mental health disorder 0.08 (0.05) 0.07 (0.05)
Intimate partner violence 0.02 (0.05) 0.03 (0.05)
Child mental health
Child mental health 0.17 (0.06)⁎⁎
Constant 1.46 (0.10)⁎⁎⁎ 1.45 (0.10)⁎⁎⁎ 1.35 (0.10)⁎⁎⁎ 1.28 (0.11)⁎⁎⁎ 1.33 (0.11)⁎⁎⁎
2
R 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.12 0.14
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p ≤ .001.

p b .01), and food insecurity (B = .22, p ≤ .001) were significant posi-
tive predictors of increased parenting stress. Food insecurity maintained
significance from intermediary model 2 to the full model for this group
(B = 0.22, p ≤ .001), with parents who indicated food insecurity in the
past 12 months having increased parenting stress levels.
The models indicate a different combination of factors may predict
parenting stress for families when examined by placement status. For
the in-home group, increased parenting stress is predicted by a history
of parent mental health disorder where as food insecurity is predictive
of parenting stress for the out-of-home group. Across both groups,
child mental health predicted parenting stress.
6.4. Limitations
Some caution should be taken in the interpretation of this study's
findings in light of limitations in study design, sample, and data. Due
to the cross-sectional nature of this study, inferences cannot be made
about a causal relationship between these identified predictors and
parenting stress. Generalization is further limited because the sample
was drawn from one geographic region and only includes parents
with a new entry to the child welfare agency in the past 30–120 days,
excluding the experiences of families whose children were returned
home within the first month. Further, this study excluded non-English
speaking families and incarcerated parents. This study relies on parent
self-report, which is open to reporting bias. While parenting stress
scores were significantly different between in-home and out-of-home
groups, parents reported lower levels of stress than expected. This may
be explained by social desirability bias; parents may have underreported
stress due to concerns that their answers would be reported to child
welfare and negatively affect their open child welfare case.
7. Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to identify predictors of
parenting stress among families involved in the child welfare system.
Arguing that context was likely to affect the experience of parenting,
we conducted separate analyses by whether children remained in-
home with child welfare supervision or were placed in out-of-home
care. Indeed, these two groups proved to be distinct on multiple dimen-
sions. Descriptive analyses revealed that parents in the out-of-home
group were younger, had less education, and were more likely to
be parenting alone. They had fewer financial resources, experienced
greater housing instability, more often reported IPV, and had higher
rates of substance use than families whose children remained in their
parent's care. The observed differences between the two groups are
consistent with prior research (Wulczyn et al., 2011). Parenting stress
scores were lower in the out-of-home group, which may simply reflect
relief from the daily pressures of parenting.
Multivariate analyses by placement status showed that in both
groups as parent age increased parenting stress scores also increased,
even after controlling for number of children in the home. Across
both groups, parenting stress was predicated by child mental health.
It has been well-established that children in the child welfare system
are at increased risk for mental health problems, with almost half of
all children who enter children's services nationally having significant
emotional or behavioral problems (Burns et al., 2004). A recent study
examining children placed in out-of-home care found a 60% increase
between 2000 and 2010 in number of children identified as having a
mental health diagnosis (Conn et al., 2013). In our survey, according
to parent report, approximately two-thirds of children had mental
health problems.
As more children in out of home care struggle with mental health is-
sues, there are cascading effects for their well-being. For example, exter-
nalizing child mental health problems can lead to placement disruption,
which can exacerbate internalizing and externalizing mental health
symptoms (Newton, Litrownik, & Landsverk, 2000). Children with in-
creased numbers of placements are less likely to reunify with their par-
ents (Landsverk, Davis, Ganger, Newton, & Johnson, 1996) and more
likely to come back into care after being returned home (VanBergeijk,
McGowan, & Stutz, 2001).
 J. Rodriguez-JenKins, M.O. Marcenko / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 19–27
These results emphasize a need for comprehensive screenings
for child mental health as well as parenting support around managing
challenging behaviors for both families who are receiving in-home
supervision and out-of-home care, especially given the number
of evidenced-based interventions available in many communities.
Interventive approaches that reduce parental stress by improving par-
enting may also act to prevent future maltreatment. There is evidence
that among child welfare involved families parenting programs such
as The Incredible Years (Webster-Stratton & Reid, 2010), Parent–child
Interaction Therapy (PCIT, Chaffin et al., 2004), Project SafeCare
(Gershater-Molko, Lutzker, & Wesch, 2003), and Triple P Parenting
(Sanders, Prinz, & Shapiro, 2011) can improve parent–child interaction,
and reduce the incidence and severity of difficult child behaviors,
thereby mitigating parent stress. These programs focus on enhancing
parenting skills, increasing parent knowledge regarding child develop-
ment, reinforcing positive child behavior, and supporting parent–child
relationships.
Although parenting stress was lower for those with children in out-
of home care, following reunification we would expect parenting stress
to increase. This assumption is based on evidence that children's be-
havioral problems often escalate post-reunification (Bellamy, 2008)
and that parents are likely to experience additional stress as they
move from intermittent parenting to full-time responsibility. Child be-
havioral problems post-reunification could lead to increased risk of
parent mental health concerns, which may impact child mental health
and behavior, and parenting responses (Anastopoulos et al., 1992).
Given the limited opportunities for parents to improve parent–child
relationships and practice positive parenting skills while children are
in out-of-home care, interventions such as those mentioned earlier
should be offered to families prior to reunification with booster ses-
sions post-reunification.
For the in-home group, parenting stress was predicted by parent
mental health. This finding is consistent with prior research (e.g.
McPherson et al., 2009). Interestingly, while rates of parent mental
health conditions were not significantly different between the two
groups, this risk factor was only a significant predictor of parenting
stress for parents whose children remained in the home. We could
speculate that mental health problems emerge due to the pressures
of parenting. Additionally, parents who have day-to-day parenting re-
sponsibilities may have less time to manage their mental health symp-
toms or engage in self-care.
These findings support a focus on decreasing parent mental health
symptoms as a way of decreasing parenting stress for parents who
are receiving in-home supervision. While assessment and treatment
of parent mental health for families regardless of placement status in
important — attention to this factor for the in-home group is critical
given the relationship with parenting stress. Successfully treating pa-
rental mental health may not only improve the mental health of the
caregiver, but can also improve the mental health of the child. Recent
evidence highlights the interconnected relationship between improve-
ments in parent and child mental health outcomes. Weissman et al.
(2006) found that after three months of receiving treatment for depres-
sion, maternal remission was associated with a significant decrease in
child mental health problems. In follow-up, Wickramaratne et al.
(2011) found that after a year, maternal remission was significantly
related to additional reductions in problem behaviors and symptoms
in their children.
For families in the out-of-home group, parenting stress was pre-
dicted by food insecurity. This may be related to the significantly
lower incomes among parents of children in placement or to the fact
that the food stamp award decreases when children are removed from
the home. In a previous analysis with this sample, mothers of children
in out-of-home placements were equally likely to receive food stamps
but more likely to utilize a food pantry or community food programs
than those in the in-home group (Marcenko et al., 2011). This suggests
that parents of children in out-of-home care need concrete assistance to
25
help them meet their families' needs for food, which in turn could de-
crease parenting stress and support reunification.
7.1. Policy implications
Shifting child welfare policy away from traditional child protective
services (CPS) investigation and toward differential response, under
specific conditions, makes these findings even more salient. Differential
response allows CPS an alternative response to allegations of abuse and
neglect in families deemed low-to-medium risk with no immediate
safety concerns. An assessment, rather than a forensic investigation is
conducted to identify family needs and strengths (Hughes, Rycus,
Saunders-Adams, Hughes, & Hughes, 2013). Theoretically, the families
in our study who were receiving in-home services would have met
criteria for differential response. Their children were not removed
early in the case, implying that there were no immediate safety con-
cerns and that families could benefit from community services while
their children remained in the home. Our findings suggest that these
families experience elevated levels of parenting stress linked to child
and parent mental health problems. States employing differential re-
sponse might examine their assessment tools to determine their ability
to detect child and parent mental health problems. Referrals to appro-
priate evidence based interventions could potentially reduce parenting
stress and prevent out-of-home placement.
7.2. Future research directions
Moving forward, future research should work to measure child
mental health in a more refined manner — perhaps including both
parent perception and child behavioral assessment. This should also ex-
plore the potential differential impact of children with internalizing
versus externalizing mental health conditions on parenting stress.
In addition, future research should capture how parents within this
population understand the behavior of their children and whether
this understanding reflects typical versus atypical developmental
behavior. Given the clear economic disadvantage that this population
of parents experience and the finding that food insecurity is associated
with increased parenting stress in the out-of-home group, including
multiple indicators of food insecurity and experience with community
services would be important to improve our understanding of the rela-
tionship between food insecurity and parenting stress. Lastly, a longitu-
dinal study design would allow a closer examination of potential causal
factors that contribute to, or mitigate, parenting stress among child
welfare involved families.
8. Conclusion
In summary, these findings support the conclusion that among child
welfare involved families, experiences of parenting stress differ by
placement status. For parents whose children remained in the home,
attending to issues of parent mental health is important. With over
50% of the parents involved in this study having mental health disorders
it is important that parent mental health is adequately treated. Further-
more, for families whose children are placed in out-of-home care it is
important that attention be placed on assessing parents needs for food
and basic resources. Lastly, issues of child mental health, regardless of
the placement of the child, need to be addressed prior to service termi-
nation in order to decrease parental and family stress at reunification
and support positive parenting.
This current study's findings add to the child welfare and parenting
stress literature by identifying sources of parenting stress among fami-
lies with open child welfare cases. Given that parenting stress is a signif-
icant risk factor for child maltreatment, understanding predictors for
these families can lead to focused interventions to decrease parenting
stress through support in key areas.
26 J. Rodriguez-JenKins, M.O. Marcenko / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 19–27
Acknowledgments
This study was funded in part by Partners for Our Children, Casey
Family Programs, NIMH Grant T32MH20010, and by the Council of So-
cial Work Education (5T065MO60560) SAMHSA Minority Fellowship
Program. The authors wish to acknowledge the collaboration between
Partners for Our Children, the Washington State Department of Social
and Health Services, and Children's Administration. We also wish to
thank the parents who participated in this study. The conclusions
drawn, however, represent the views of the authors.
References
Abidin, R. R. (1992). The determinants of parenting behavior. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 21(4), 407.
Anastopoulos, A.D., Guevremont, D. C., Shelton, T. L., & DuPaul, G. J. (1992). Parenting
stress among families of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20(5), 503–520.
Barnett, M. (2008). Economic disadvantage in complex family systems: Expansion of
family stress models. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11(3), 145–161.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10567-008-0034-z.
Bellamy, J. L. (2008). Behavioral problems following reunification of children in long-term
foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(2), 216–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.childyouth.2007.09.008.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development,
55(1), 83–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.ep7405453.
Berry, J. O., & Jones, W. H. (1995). The parental stress scale: Initial psychometric evidence.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(3), 463–472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0265407595123009.
Bigras, M., LaFreniere, P. J., & Dumas, J. E. (1996). Discriminant validity of the parent and
child scales of the Parenting Stress Index. Early Education & Development, 7(2),
167–178.
Black, D. A., Heyman, R. E., & Smith Slep, A.M. (2001). Risk factors for child physical abuse.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6(2–3), 121–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-
1789(00)00021-5.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Mass: Harvard Univeristy Press: Cambridge.
Burns, B. J., Phillips, S. D., Wagner, H. R., Barth, R. P., Kolko, D. J., Campbell, Y., et al. (2004).
Mental health need and access to mental health services by youths involved with child
welfare: A national survey. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 43(8), 960–970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000127590.95585.65.
Cain, D. S., & Combs-Orme, T. (2005). Family structure effects on parenting stress and
practices in the African American family. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare,
32(2), 19–40.
Chaffin, M., Silovsky, J. F., Funderburk, B., Valle, L. A., Brestan, E. V., Balachova, T., et al.
(2004). Parent–Child Interaction Therapy with physically abusive parents: Efficacy
for reducing future abuse reports. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
72(3), 500–510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.500.
Conn, A. -M., Szilagyi, M.A., Franke, T. M., Albertin, A., Blumkin, K., & Szilagyi, P. G.
(2013). Trends in child protection and out-of-home care. Pediatrics, 132(4), 712–719.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0969.
Cooper, C. E., McLanahan, S. S., Meadows, S. O., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009). Family structure
transitions and maternal parenting stress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3),
558–574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00619.x.
Creasey, G. L., & Reese, M. (1996). Mothers' and fathers' perceptions of parenting hassles:
Associations with psychological symptoms, nonparenting hassles, and child behavior
problems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 393–406. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0193-3973(96)90033-7.
Crnic, K. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (1990). Minor parenting stresses with young children.
Child Development, 61(5), 1628–1637.
Curenton, S. M., McWey, L. M., & Bolen, M. G. (2009). Distinguishing maltreating versus
nonmaltreating at-risk families: Implications for foster care and early childhood edu-
cation interventions. Families in Society, 90(2), 176–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1606/
1044-3894.3871.
Deater-Deckard, K. D. (2004). Parenting stress. New Haven: Yale University Press.
El-Kamary, S. S., Higman, S. M., Fuddy, L., McFarlane, E., Sia, C., & Duggan, A. K. (2004).
Hawaii's healthy start home visiting program: Determinants and impact of rapid
repeat birth. Pediatrics, 114(3), 317–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-0618.
Éthier, L. S., Lacharité, C., & Couture, G. (1995). Childhood adversity, parental stress, and
depression of negligent mothers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(5), 619–632. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(95)00020-9.
Garbarino, J. (1977). The human ecology of child maltreatment: A conceptual model for
research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 39(4), 721–735. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
350477.
Gerring, C. E., Kemp, S. P., & Marcenko, M.O. (2008). The Connections Project: A relational
approach to engaging birth parents in visitation. Child Welfare, 87(6), 5–30.
Gershater-Molko, R. M., Lutzker, J. R., & Wesch, D. (2003). Project SafeCare: Improving
health, safety, and parenting skills in families reported for, and at-risk for child mal-
treatment. Journal of Family Violence, 18(6), 377–386.
Gershoff, E. T., Aber, J. L., Raver, C. C., & Lennon, M. C. (2007). Income is not enough: Incor-
porating material hardship into models of income associations with parenting and
child development. Child Development, 78(1), 70–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-8624.2007.00986.x.
Gray, P. H., Edwards, D.M., O'Callaghan, M. J., Cuskelly, M., & Gibbons, K. (2013). Parenting
stress in mothers of very preterm infants — Influence of development, temperament
and maternal depression. Early Human Development, 89(9), 625–629. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2013.04.005.
Haskett, M. E., Smith Scott, S., Grant, R., Ward, C. S., & Robinson, C. (2003). Child-related
cognitions and affective functioning of physically abusive and comparison parents.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(6), 663–686. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2013.
04.005.
Hill, R. B. (2006). Synthesis of research on disproportionality in child welfare: An update:
Casey–CSSP alliance for racial equity in the child welfare system.
Hughes, R. C., Rycus, J. S., Saunders-Adams, S. M., Hughes, L. K., & Hughes, K. N. (2013).
Issues in differential response. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(5), 493–520.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049731512466312.
Kalil, A., Tolman, R., Rosen, D., & Gruber, G. (2003). Domestic violence and children's
behavior in low-income families. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 3(1/2), 75–101.
Kelley, S. J. (1992). Parenting stress and child maltreatment in drug-exposed children.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(3), 317–328.
Landsverk, J., Davis, I., Ganger, W., Newton, R., & Johnson, I. (1996). Impact of child psy-
chosocial functioning on reunification from out-of-home placement. Children and
Youth Services Review, 18(4–5), 447–462.
Leigh, B., & Milgrom, J. (2008). Risk factors for antenatal depression, postnatal depres-
sion and parenting stress. BMC Psychiatry, 8, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-
244X-8-24.
Lessenberry, B., & Rehfeldt, R. (2004). Evaluating stress levels of parents of children with
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 231–244.
Levendosky, A. A., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (1998). The moderating effects of parenting
stress on children's adjustment in woman-abusing families. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 13(3), 383–397.
Marcenko, M. O., Lyons, S. J., & Courtney, M. (2011). Mothers' experiences, resources and
needs: The context for reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(3),
431–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.06.020.
Margalit, M., & Kleitman, T. (2006). Mothers' stress, resilience and early intervention.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(3), 269–283.
McDowell, A.D., Saylor, C. F., Taylor, M. J., Boyce, G. C., & Stokes, S. J. (1995). Ethnicity and
parenting stress change during early intervention. Early Child Development and Care,
111(1), 131–140.
McPherson, A. V., Lewis, K. M., Lynn, A. E., Haskett, M. E., & Behrend, T. S. (2009). Predic-
tors of parenting stress for abusive and nonabusive mothers. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 18(1), 61–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-008-9207-0.
Nair, P., Schuler, M. E., Black, M. M., Kettinger, L., & Harrington, D. (2003). Cumulative
environmental risk in substance abusing women: Early intervention, parenting
stress, child abuse potential and child development. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(9),
997–1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00169-8.
Newton, R. R., Litrownik, A. J., & Landsverk, J. A. (2000). Children and youth in foster care:
Disentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of place-
ments. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(10), 1363–1374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0145-
2134(00)00189-7.
Pears, K. C., & Capaldi, D.M. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of abuse: A two-
generational prospective study of an at-risk sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(11),
1439–1461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00286-1.
Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Zelli, A. (2000). Discipline
responses: Influences of parents' socioeconomic status, ethnicity, beliefs about
parenting, stress, and cognitive–emotional processes. Journal of Family Psychology,
14(3), 380–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.14.3.380.
Renner, L. M. (2009). Intimate partner violence victimization and parenting stress:
Assessing the mediating role of depressive symptoms. Violence Against Women,
15(11), 1380–1401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801209346712.
Rodgers, A. Y. (1993). The assessment of variables related to the parenting behavior of
mothers with young children. Children and Youth Services Review, 15(5), 385–402.
Rodriguez, C. M. (2010). Personal contextual characteristics and cognitions: Predicting
child abuse potential and disciplinary style. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(2),
315–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260509334391.
Rosman, E., McCarthy, J., & Woolverton, M. (2001). Focusing on families in welfare reform
reauthorization: Adults with mental health needs and children with special needs.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
Sanders, M. R., Prinz, R. J., & Shapiro, C. (2011). Parenting and child maltreatment as public
health issues: Implications from the Triple P system of intervention. In A. Rubin (Ed.),
Programs and interventions for maltreated children and families at risk. Clinician's guide
to evidence-based practice (pp. 297–312). Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
Sheehan, D.V., Lecrubier, Y., Harnett Sheehan, K., Janavs, J., Weiller, E., Keskiner, A., et al.
(1997). The validity of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI)
according to the SCID-P and its reliability. European Psychiatry, 12(5), 232–241.
Smith, D. K., Johnson, A. B., Pears, K. C., Fisher, P. A., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2007). Child
maltreatment and foster care: Unpacking the effects of prenatal and postnatal paren-
tal substance use. Child Maltreatment, 12(2), 150–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1077559507300129.
Solem, M. -B., Christophersen, K. -A., & Martinussen, M. (2011). Predicting parenting
stress: Children's behavioural problems and parents' coping. Infant and Child
Development, 20(2), 162–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/icd.681.
Straus, M.A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT)
scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41(1), 75–88.
Sullivan, C. M., Nguyen, H., Allen, N., Bybee, D., & Juras, J. (2000). Beyond searching for
deficits: Evidence that physically and emotionally abused women are nurturing
parents. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(1), 51–71.
 J. Rodriguez-JenKins, M.O. Marcenko / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 19–27
Taylor, J. Y., Washington, O. G., Artinian, N. T., & Lichtenberg, P. (2007). Parental stress
among African American parents and grandparents. Issues in Mental Health Nursing,
28(4), 373–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.126722.
VanBergeijk, E., McGowan, B., & Stutz, E. (2001). Children in foster care. In A. Gitterman
(Ed.), Handbook of social work practice with vulnerable and resilient populations
(2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Webster-Stratton, C. (1990). Stress: A potential disruptor of parent perceptions and
family interactions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19(4), 302.
Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, J. M. (2010). Adapting The Incredible Years, an evidence-
based parenting programme, for families involved in the child welfare system.
Journal of Children's Services, 5(1), 25–42.
27
Weissman, M. M., Pilowsky, D. J., Wickramaratne, P. J., Talati, A., Wisniewski, S. R., Fava,
M., et al. (2006). Remissions in maternal depression and child psychopathology:
A STAR*D-child report. JAMA, 295(12), 1389–1398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.
295.12.1389.
Wickramaratne, P., Gameroff, M. J., Pilowsky, D. J., Hughes, C. W., Garber, J., Malloy, E.,
et al. (2011). Children of depressed mothers 1 year after the initiation of maternal
treatment: Findings from the STAR*D-child study. American Journal of Psychiatry,
168(6), 593–602 (doi).
Wulczyn, F., Ernst, M., & Fisher, P. (2011). Who are the infants in out-of-home care? An
epidemiological and developmental snapshot. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall.